I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Thank you for this excellent reference. Ethics is on a higher plane than law. I'd like to think, I do believe, that ethical imperatives "trump," if you will, mandates that are legal yet unethical. In the end I guess it'll be a matter of individual conscience. What a dilemma for members of the military.
For those who don't subscrbe the column begins: "Would a military officer disobey a lawful but unethical order — unethical in the sense that it violates the officer’s professional code? We may be on the verge of finding out."
It concludes:
Scholars of civil-military relations have engaged in long-running debate (what is legal vs. what is ethical) on this issue. Those who side with obedience emphasize the importance of civilian control of the military. Proponents of disobedience respond that the Army ethic protects not just civilian control of the military but also against the civilian misuse of the military. The foremost scholar of civil-military relations, the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, suggested that the dilemma was irresolvable.
In recent years, when the dilemma threatened to rupture civil-military relations, high-ranking authorities stepped in to defuse the crisis — as when Mr. Esper publicly invoked the military’s ethical principles to oppose domestically deploying the military in 2020. Mr. Esper may have narrowly saved service members from having to decide whether to disobey a direct order.
In his second term Mr. Trump has been more careful to place loyalists in positions of authority. This means that the question of ethical resistance may fall on officers in the field. They may be forced to choose between professional obedience and professional integrity, between their duty to the commander in chief and to the American people. It is a tragic bind — for them, for the military and for American democracy.
Army Oath for this enlisting.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Fuck those war hawks. Old cranks.
The generals are a disgrace; shameless cowards. They shudder in fear of our Coward-in-Chief, President Bone Spurs. It's beyond understanding.
Thank you for the comment. I wish I could hear what the generals that are appalled by this are saying behind closed doors. If you have a sub. the the NYT read: The Military May Find Itself in an Impossible Situation here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/11/opinion/military-deploy-trump-ethics.html
Thank you for this excellent reference. Ethics is on a higher plane than law. I'd like to think, I do believe, that ethical imperatives "trump," if you will, mandates that are legal yet unethical. In the end I guess it'll be a matter of individual conscience. What a dilemma for members of the military.
For those who don't subscrbe the column begins: "Would a military officer disobey a lawful but unethical order — unethical in the sense that it violates the officer’s professional code? We may be on the verge of finding out."
It concludes:
Scholars of civil-military relations have engaged in long-running debate (what is legal vs. what is ethical) on this issue. Those who side with obedience emphasize the importance of civilian control of the military. Proponents of disobedience respond that the Army ethic protects not just civilian control of the military but also against the civilian misuse of the military. The foremost scholar of civil-military relations, the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, suggested that the dilemma was irresolvable.
In recent years, when the dilemma threatened to rupture civil-military relations, high-ranking authorities stepped in to defuse the crisis — as when Mr. Esper publicly invoked the military’s ethical principles to oppose domestically deploying the military in 2020. Mr. Esper may have narrowly saved service members from having to decide whether to disobey a direct order.
In his second term Mr. Trump has been more careful to place loyalists in positions of authority. This means that the question of ethical resistance may fall on officers in the field. They may be forced to choose between professional obedience and professional integrity, between their duty to the commander in chief and to the American people. It is a tragic bind — for them, for the military and for American democracy.